W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > February 2005

RE: New URI registration draft; significant changed

From: Dave McAlpin <Dave.McAlpin@epok.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 12:48:00 -0500
Message-ID: <1636C74D3A020E4781DC433A4D901D957987BE@empire.dc.epokinc.com>
To: "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>, "Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org>, <uri@w3.org>

Should best practices with respect to internationalization be revisited
now that RFC 3987 is available? If a new scheme's syntax is defined only
in terms of RFC 3986, applications that accept IRIs need to either a)
map the IRI into a URI before applying the scheme's ABNF or b) work out
their own IRI-compatible ABNF for the scheme so they can process the IRI
form without first mapping to a URI. Would it be better to say that new
schemes SHOULD also define (non-normative?) syntax based on RFC 3987 for
applications capable of processing IRIs directly? Doing so, I think,
could be quite helpful to implementers.


-----Original Message-----
From: uri-request@w3.org [mailto:uri-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
McDonald, Ira
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 2:25 PM
To: 'Larry Masinter'; uri@w3.org
Subject: RE: New URI registration draft; significant changed

Tony, Ted, and Larry,

My compliments!

I just read this whole draft pretty carefully.  I found
_no_ nits to complain about.  I'm delighted to see that
the old text about 'published in an RFC' is gone.

Others - please read this draft soon and send comments.  
I personally think they've got it right this time.

- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com

-----Original Message-----
From: uri-request@w3.org [mailto:uri-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Larry
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 1:08 AM
To: uri@w3.org
Subject: New URI registration draft; significant changed

An updated version was just sent to the Internet Drafts editor; versions
available also at:

l.xml (viewable)

This involved a significant change to the proposal, based on a more
of RFC 2434 (BCP 26) on "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations
which recommends not inventing a new process. The goal has been to
process, so, in this draft, the process required for all registrations
Review", with different guidelines for 'Permanent', 'Provisional', and
The Designated Expert may recommend IETF review and IESG approval if
(Don't reply to this summary; read the actual text, please.)

In addition, all values are unique (no duplicates) unless the IESG
changing an existing registration to point out the other usages or

I also tried to incorporate most of Roy's suggestions as well as some of
others; however, I didn't add another level (well, except for
but instead tried to make the process simpler and more deterministic.



Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.305 / Virus Database: 266.1.0 - Release Date: 2/18/2005
Received on Tuesday, 22 February 2005 17:48:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:19:13 UTC